tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 16, 2013 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
and that there is no rush between now and then to make a decision on title two. i will note, however, that as you mentioned, this has been open for a long time and it has not had the threatened chilling effect that some have worried about on investment in wireless and broadband infrastructure. investment in wireless and broadband infrastructure. this is an issue that clearly is going to have to be dealt with. we will start with the court's decision . >> three more questions i want to get in. we understand the fcc launched a study on critical information needs. apparently it includes a qualitative media analysis which would require interviewing reporters and editors to figure out how the media decide what stories to run. are these kinds of questions questions a government should be
asking of the news media? as someone with a journalism degree, i get a little chill up my spine. does it have any effect on the media that the regulatory body is even asking these questions? how does it help you fulfill your section 257 mandate on which it is predicated? >> i think this goes back to the root of the discussion we were having a moment ago about making sure the public understands what is going on. the 257 requirement mandates lowering barriers to access to media for minorities, women, small business, and other identified groups. in order to make that kind of a
judgment you have to have facts. in order to have facts, you do studies. what we did, there was a study that has been proposed by a consulting firm that we were working with. we put that out for public notice to exactly get the kind of input you are suggesting. but it is not, and -- this is not an effort to influence the media. >> i will interrupt you for a second. when some of the questions of media personnel include, what is the philosophy, what are the demographics of management and staff. what you would consider critical information. these seem like really internal journalistic issues. now, i need to move on because i'm over, but it is an important question. the quantile regression analysis has had a negative impact on investment and the deployment of broadband services in rural america. mr. pai, you have been an advocate for the need to address this program to ensure that rural americans are not left behind. what do you recommend, commissioner pai, needs to be done with respect to the qra?
>> i have seen the problems on paper. the department of agriculture are ported to us earlier this year that 37% of funds are sitting on the table because there is so much uncertainty among rural carriers. from my home state of kansas to carriers in rural alaska, i have seen that they are uncertain of what the future portends. they are not creating additional investments, which creates a divide we will not be able to bridge .
>> chairman wheeler, given the negative impact on broadband development, do you intend to reconsider the application? >> yes. as a matter of fact, i have asked the bureau to draft and let me see an order that i could share with my colleagues to eliminate the qra and return to the high-cost loops. >> i have other issues with the fm translators and delay in the rulemaking, dealing with cable operators, the groups utilized by them. maybe we can follow-up afterwards. the committee has been kind to let me overextend my questioning. we are usually fairly flexible on that here. now i turn it over to the ranking member, ms. eshoo. >> that is great. so i have seven minutes, right? [laughter] mr. chairman, you said it is your 39th day. i would like to add that i think your adult lifetime of work has brought you to this. >> that has been a long lifetime. >> a wonderful path that has
prepared you for this position. i have a whole list of niche issues which is really the way we deal with all these things. first, do you think you will get a deal on cell phone unlocking by the end of this year? >> i hope we will be presenting to the commission today -- as a matter of fact, i know we will be presenting to the commission today the voluntary agreement that has been reached with the wireless industry. so the answer is probably yes. >> terrific. my second question, last week, as you know, i joined with my colleagues to ask you to take action to prevent at&t from implementing a significant rate hike for their special access customers. i appreciate what you have done in terms of the suspension. but i think there is much more that needs to be done on special access reform. can we expect further action? >> i apologize. i am currently recused from the
preceding. >> so how will it happen? >> it moves ahead with the other members of the commission. >> i see. i am going to assume that they are going to, that this area will be examined. because we really have to have a reasonable rate for this important service. on commissioner rosenworcel, thank you for your testimony. i love the way you present things. it is so clear. you can feel the sense of urgency and why it is urgent
and. how are you going to pursue getting this done on the commission, the whole issue of e-rate. you presented an eloquent case. i think you gave a fantastic speech last week on 911 and the problems we have between indoor and outdoor. that and the e-rate. maybe i should be asking the chairman what he plans to do on e-rate. i know what you want to do. maybe we can switch over to chairman wheeler? >> on e-rate, there is a leader on this commission. as you say, i would like to associate myself with the remarks of commissioner
rosenworcel. >> maybe next time the commission comes before us you can tell us the steps we're going to take. >> if i can say one thing, we are going to put out a schedule to address this issue. >> that is terrific. on the challenge of the indoor versus outdoor wireless and 911, what is your plan to address this? >> as the old saying goes, you may only make one 911 call in your life, but it will be the most important call you ever make. right now, if you make that call from your wireline phone the first responder knows exactly where you are. if you make that call outdoors in a field, using your wireless phone, we have location accuracy standards. >> i am asking what you want to do about the challenge.
>> endorses the problem. we have no standard. increasingly, households are cutting the cord. more than one third of households rely exclusively on wireless phones. i don't think it is acceptable that when people make emergency calls, first responders can't find them. i recommended in that speech you mentioned that we start a rulemaking to address this. we have heard from carriers and from public safety officials that this is an issue. >> good for you for identifying this and taking it up. i think one of the things i taught my children from their earliest memory was, 911. putting their fingers on the keypad so they would understand that. you are absolutely right. commissioner pai, you made a wonderful,. something about not one dime more on phone bills. i want to raise something with the chairman going back about below the line fees. we wrote to our nation's leading wireless and wireline providers, and we asked them about their practice of applying below the line fees on monthly bills. i agree with commissioner pai. that is why we wrote. we have a concern about what people are paying. these things are hidden. they think everything on their bill is a tax.
i have to tell you, i brought my bills in. i could not tell what the heck they were, who was doing what to whom and what it was for. tell me what you think the agency, i know there is a long list of the challenges, but these are important issues for consumers. what steps can the agency take under existing statute to ensure that consumers know exactly how much they are paying each month, especially prior to signing up for their service, and the whole issue of below the line fees? >> this is a very legitimate concern. the specific one is a retransmission consent charge that cable operators have just begun putting on the bill. i say "just begun." i am trying to get around that and figure out exactly what our authorities are to answer your question. it does, however, strike me that the broader issue that the chairman and others have talked
about in terms of the issues that need to be addressed in a telecom act rewrite, just what is going on. >> but that will be, like, seven years from now. >> oh, no. >> let's see. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman walden, and thank you to the entire commission. i want to say also, welcome to the new team that has come in. we wish you well. we really do. the chairman and the commission will operate at a higher level because of the high level of people that have come in to support the work. congratulations to each one of you. >> we will now move on to the vice chair of the subcommittee mr. lamb of ohio. >> thank you very much to our commission members for being with us today. this is a question i would like to ask all of you. the incentive auction
legislation prohibits the fcc from excluding qualified bidders. as it works its way up to the commission, it appears the wireless bureau is simultaneously working on the spectrum aggregation docket to achieve spectrum caps. will you commit to allowing any interested bidder that complies with statutory requirements to participate fully in the auction? chairman, if i could start with you. in your testimony, when you talked about the incentive auction, you said you are looking at a voluntary market- oriented approach. >> the statute is quite explicit
in that regard that the commission may not exclude somebody from participating. >> also aggregating? it would be wide open for everyone to be involved? >> what has been developing here, the ceo of at&t recently came out with a statement saying, wait a minute, i think i would like to have rules to make sure not one party can run away with all the spectrum. i think that in between those positions is where reality exists. the statute, i agree, is quite clear. the statute says we will not exclude anybody, and the statute
also says that the commission will design an option so as to promote competition and consumer choice to sustain a healthy wireless marketplace. we will do both. >> madam clyburn. >> section 6404 is clear, that any party that ok's the rules is qualified to participate. it also makes clear that the commission has the ability to enforce rules of general applicability that will allow for spectrum aggregation in order to promote competition. so again, my colleague mentioned that part of the reasons for some of the robust participation and the types of ideas we are seeing is because we took a dual path. on the same day we release the notice of proposed rulemaking on the incentive auction, we also released a notice of proposed rulemaking about this. i think that this in the long run will improve our information dissemination and our acquisition and rulemaking once we decide on a clear path forward. >> thank you. >> the middle-class tax relief and job creation act says we can have rules of general applicability but we can't
exclude anyone from participation in the auction. it is easy and simple. we have to follow the law. >> i would agree with my colleague. i would point out that if you look at the end goal, to have a successful auction that pushes out a lot of spectrum and yields revenue to fund national priorities and provides fairness to all parties involved, then we should not conclusively deterred participation by adopting unduly strict policies. >> i want to thank my colleagues for stating that the statute is clear.
it was an effort to give the commission some authority in this base when members could not come to agreement. i am extremely hesitant to impose limitations on spectrum aggregation, because we have certain obligations under the statute. the money has all ready been spent. we have already spent the money from the spectrum act, so we have obligations to provide $7 billion. we have deficit reduction numbers that are already out the door. so i am worried about anything that would depress auction revenues. i am aware of the statute, and i want to remain open to considering.
i am hesitant at this time to impose anything. >> thank you. many of you know that competition has been an ongoing issue in my district. i think the fcc for issuing the notice of proposed rulemaking to improve the ability to monitor the deliver of calls and roll areas by mandating certain requirements from carriers. commissioner pai, do you believe the november 8 order will resolve this, orders more need to be done? >> i certainly hope it will. whether in toledo or topeka, we need to figure out where the
kink in the system is. and what point is the network failing? if it is a technical problem, we can take steps to fix it. if it is something the sec needs to be empowered to take corrective action. i support taking action sooner rather than later. >> thank you very much. i see my times expired, and i yield back. >> we now turn to be ranking member of the full committee mr. waxman, for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i wanted to indicate that under the act, the fcc may not single out a specific provider for exclusion from the system of competitive bidding. at the same time, the fcc is permitted to adopt and enforce rules of general applicability that promote competition. even at&t recently it knowledge they support rules that limit the amount of spectrum anyone company could acquire as long as
the rules applied evenly to all auction participants. chairman wheeler, as you know i am a strong supporter of the open internet rules because i believe the internet must remain an open lab form for innovation and commerce. you have emphasized the importance of the open internet order. at the same time, you recently made comments suggesting that an internet service provider could charge a content provider such as netflix a fee in order to guarantee the best available transmission speed. do you see these types of business arrangements as consistent with the fcc's open internet rules? >> thank you, mr. waxman, for raising that issue.
it gives me an opportunity to get more specific than i was in ohio. i am a strong supporter of the open internet rules, full stop. the rules were written in such a way as to envision opportunities for innovation and experimentation. and to impose on them a balance between protecting the open internet, protecting consumers and stimulating innovation. new ideas, under the open internet order, new ideas such as those you have referenced, in a wireless environment particularly, are not prohibited. but there is a clear responsibility for the commission to make sure that what takes place does not interfere with internet access is not anticompetitive, and does not provide preferential treatment. and we will enforce that. we will maintain the balance between innovation and assuring there is an open internet. >> i appreciate your expanding on that issue. while network infrastructure and technology have changed since the passage of the 1996 telecommunications act, the values embedded in the act have not. i know you will soon begin a process to collect real-world information and data on the ip transitions. how will the commission continued to advance the long- standing goals of competition,
universal access, and consumer protections throughout this transition process? >> mr. waxman, there are many people who have described the trial, the ip trials, as a technology trial. i don't think they are technology trials. we know how to build ip networks. they are exactly what you raised. they are a values trial. they are, how do we make sure that the values that for 100 years americans have come to expect from their networks continue even after the way in which the network operates changes? that is what we are going to be looking for. it is not whether they work. we know that can get taken care of. it is, what are the values, how do you preserve the values in the new technological environment? >> commissioner rosenworcel, do you want to add anything?
>> i think there are so many exciting things that can come with networks. we should embrace the future rather than reject it, so i think experimenting in these kinds of trials is a smart way to go. but as we move into the future we have to be informed by the values that have always been a part of communications policy. i see four -- public safety universal access, competition, and consumer protection. >> thank you. commissioner o?rielly, i appreciate your appeal to bipartisanship in your testimony. i know you played an important role in helping us get the bipartisan legislation and the passage of the public safety and spectrum act last year. you helped negotiate the availability of unlicensed spectrum. what is your perspective on unlicensed spectrum generally? do you think the commission is on the right track? >> yes. i am a strong proponent of
unlicensed spectrum. i'm always amazed what the innovators and experimenters can do with unlicensed spectrum. i think there is great opportunity in the 600 megahertz for more unlicensed spectrum. a number of ideas have been proposed where unlicensed could fit. channel 37, guard bands, depending on what her plan looks like. we talked about wireless microphones. they will be whitespace in the 500, maybe the 600 as well, and there will be residual conversions, if you are talking about converting from six megahertz to five megahertz broadcast channels. so, there should be opportunity in the incentive options after our rules are complete for unlicensed spectrum. i am strongly supportive of those.
the only difficulty is figuring out how big those bands should be. >> my last question is to commissioner pai. you stated in your testimony that 92% of americans can now choose from 10 or more wireline competitors. if that number is accurate doesn't it demonstrate that the pro-competitive policies of the 1996 telecom act are working? don't you believe we should continue to support a marketplace that gives non- incumbents a fair chance? >> congas and waxman, thank you for the question. i think the multiplicity of choices and sewers enjoyed demonstrates that an ip environment where you have conversion, something we only dreamed about during the 1996 act, were you have telephone companies competing with wireless companies to provide the same services, we can rely in a way we could not in 1996 on marketplace and technological innovation to drive consumer choice. to the extent that there are values of competition embedded in the 1996 act, i embrace those, but we should ultimately be mindful of the fact technology can quite often outpace where laws and regulations are.
that appears to be where we are with respect to the ip transition. >> should we report a market place that gives nonincumbents a fair chance to compete? >> absolutely. the market play should give everyone a fair chance to compete. >> i turn to the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers. >> as he represented it of michigan state university, i want to say thank you for giving me a great weekend. [laughter] i do find it suspicious that my phone has not worked since the game. i wonder if you might be looking into that for me, mr. chairman. in the fcc's recent council meeting, i understand you talked about the need to apply metrics and evaluating the security. can you elaborate on that for me? >> the group you are talking about has done a terrific job in
using the multi-stakeholder process to come up with rules on botnets, router security important network security issues. but it is not enough to just say, ok, here are the rules, then walk away. the question is, are the rules working? what i have asked the group to do, is a multi-stakeholder process, is to say, how do you establish metrics and know if this is working? that is the trust but verify kind of situation. >> how do you find those metrics? how are you working through that process to define metrics in threats that change literally by the hour? on botnets, for instance, how can you track the movement of where they are going? they seem to have moved into
data centers. what we know about that and what that might suggest, and what are we seeing in terms of results of the implementation of the kidns of things they have suggested? if you find you are in some kind of disagreement on meeting those standards, do you foresee a regulatory scheme? >> i would not want to presume a hypothetical. i would hope we would be working with industry to identify what needs to be done. much like we are going to announce today on the cell phone unlocking, we sat with industry and said, here is a problem, it has got to be solved. by the way, we will have metrics on that. that is the preferable first approach.
that is the approach we are taking. >> when you say that, if i hear you correctly that means you are at least contemplating a regulatory scheme of some sort beyond just the voluntary, here is our metrics, try to do the best? >> that is the right question, but the key word is "contemplating." i have talked repeatedly about what i call the regulatory seesaw. you do this, we don't need to do this. what they are doing is saying, ok, here are the kinds of things that need to be done. if the seesaw has to tip, it has to tip, but it only tips on the basis of need, not the basis of theory. >> if i understood correctly there is a possibility you could regulate. we should have lots of conversations about that.
i worry that by the time you process your regulatory framework, it is too late, the threats have changed. >> i could not agree more. the reason why the multi- stakeholder processes preferred is because it is much more dynamic, much more flexible, moves much quicker than a regulatory process can, and can stay flexible. that is why i'm trying to say, yes, that's the preferred process. >> you're not going to move away from the council model for regulation? >> the multi-stakeholder process is the right way to go. >> can you talk about team telecom? it is important in terms of preventing investments or purchases to prevent threats to national security, like chinese attempts to gain control of
telecommunication nodes? can you give us an idea of what you are thinking? >> when issues come before the commission relative to mergers acquisitions, whatever the case may be, the input from team telecom is always sought and taken into account. >> do you see an improvement to that process? can we do something, once the report comes back you have a limited set of decisions you can make. you are in, out or disagree. is there something better we should be doing, providing authority for you all to be -- given the nature of the changing technology and how fast it changes? >> i have not had to live through one of these yet, so i am probably not qualified to opine on the fly. i would love to look into this and have a discussion with you about it.
>> we are looking at reforms to try to make sure we are keeping up. i look forward to that dialogue. thank you very much. >> we now turn to committee chairman emeritus, mr. dingell also from michigan, i believe, for five minutes. >> i have no comments. i went to welcome my old friend chairman wheeler to the committee. we look forward to great things from you. i'm satisfied you will serve with distinction. i want to welcome commissioner o'rielly, and i want to commend commissioner clyburn. your daddy would be very proud. my questions will be directed solely at chairman wheeler. you will not be surprised to hear yes or no responses.
i would like to start with a reverse auction of broadcast frequencies authorized by the jobs creation act. you recently announced to hear the commission will not conduct such options until 2015. that gives you an extra year. in the meantime, do you expect complete negotiations concerning the relocation of broadcast frequencies with canada, mexico, and border areas? yes or no? >> no, but i am very hopeful we will be able to move it forward. you don't have to have the signature on the page. >> you know that would cause a lot of viewers to lose service and a lot of screens to go dark in our part of the country. paragraph 15 of the commission's notice of proposed rulemaking for the incentive option states
"the commission expects interested parties will have an opportunity for meaningful comment on all specific repackaging methodologies before it is considering -- methodologies it is considering before it makes a decision." does the commission publicly commit to sharing with the public the broadcast frequency repacking methodology it adopts, as well as the variables and other inputs it may used to predict repackaging results, yes or no? >> i will go beyond yes and say absolutely. >> mr. chairman, let's move onto the forward auction of broadcast frequencies. section 6403c of the middle- class tax relief and job creation act provides the commission may not grant licenses through forward auction, reassign, or reallocate broadcast frequencies or revoke spectrum usage unless unless the proceeds of a forward auction
are greater than the following three factors combined. first, the total amount of compensation the commission must pay successful bidders in the reverse auction. the cost of conducting a forward auction, and the estimated cost to the commission to pay for broadcaster reallocations. in addition, it is in the public interest of the commission to ensure the auction raises a significant amount of money in order to help build out. together, these constitute a significant pressure on the commission to raise significant revenues to accomplish these objectives, do they not? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, will the commission adopt fair and simple rules to encourage participation
by the broadest group of wireless providers in the forward auction, yes or no? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, let's focus our attention on intelligent transportation systems. this is of considerable importance to my part of the country and our industries. and the five gigahertz band. given the commission licensed its almost 15 years ago, is it reasonable to say it would be premature for the commission to authorize unlicensed use of the 5850-5925 megahertz band before studies are completed that would confirm such use would not cause harmful interference with its services and other incumbent uses? >> yes.
and let me go further. we will not authorize if there is harmful interference. >> i am very comforted that you are here this morning, mr. chairman. chairman wheeler, do you believe the commission should improve -- approve unlicensed use of the megahertz band before definitively establishing no risk of harmful interference with its systems? or practical strategies to mitigate such risks? >> no, and i repeat, we will do nothing that causes harmful interference. >> is the commission considering moving forward with rulemaking opening only the 5035 megahertz -- the 5350 megahertz band for unlicensed use? >> this is where i need to ask a question. the answer is yes, if it is we are considering. the answer is no, if we have decided. >> mr. chairman, i would like to
commend you for your work in advancing the transition to ip- based networks. will the commission consider an order in 2014 that will adjust -- that will address geographic trials, as well as how to detect in the best way for consumers using ip-based networks? yes or no? >> yes. >> you have been most gracious. thank you for this. mr. chairman, your comments have been helpful. thank you to you and the members for your presence. >> thank you. the gentleman yield back. the chair recognizes mr. guthrie. >> thank you. i appreciate that. welcome. it is good to have you here. i echo the good work that you are doing here.
there seems to be a lot of progress made. a lot of progress is being made to free up the hertz band for commercial use. i know that fcc has sought comment on how this can be used for commercial uses. is the fcc on track for the band. with another and -- is on track for the band paired with another band? >> yes, we are still on track. there are still some issues. >> are there some impediments you can identify? >> i think these are implementation all kinds of things. to be specific to your question, we have a september time frame. >> you spent time in the wireless industry.
i have seen firsthand how demand has grown exponentially. a lot of our short purpose is on the incentive option of the megahertz. looking forward, which is the -- what is the fcc doing to plan for future demand? how can they ensure that there is a do spectrum to status by -- that there continues to be a pipeline of spectrum what for consumers will face and demand? looking again, how do you plan for future spectrum demand? what. state have? -- what thoughts do you have? >> applying the incentive option concepts to government spectrum, i am a believer that by the time that we put everything away, it comes down to economics. economics of an agency where they can get cash to help them fulfill their mission is an important kind of decision.
you have created a structure where this can happen. >> we look at that in our worker in group. it is a lot a work for the agencies to do this. i only say -- i always say -- i did not run around kentucky saying, get me elected and i will get you spectrum. you learn things when you get elected that you never thought you would deal with. my consumers, my constituents demand it. they want fast bandwidths. it is true -- we were looking at it. you can get numbers of it will cost this and that. it gives them a reason to go in and make this happen. >> the interesting thing is i was involved in the negotiations back in the year 2000. it was the first negotiation with the department of defense.
we kept saying to them, you will get money. they said they could not spend it is it those to the general treasure. -- general treasury. but you have done is set up a structure to help compensate people. the beauty of it is that what it does is it creates a cash flow for them to be able to meet their new needs and to be able to raid their equipment -- upgrade their equipment. it is a winning situation all around. >> yesterday you said it was a win-win-win for the consumers and agencies and the taxpayers. so, in the future, what are you looking at for what should happen for bandwidth and more spectrum as we move into the future? as we move beyond that needed
-- beyond the immediate auctions and things. what are other things we can do to free spectrum? >> we are constantly looking at how to get the most efficient use out of the spectrum. one of the interesting things we will be running a test on is what do you do with spec drum sharing -- spectrum sharing? there is a digital world the -- in a digital world the opportunity to share spectrum, but our spectrum allocations were set up with analog assumptions. if we can share it and reuse it, it is a great opportunity and we need to be pursuing that as well. >> a great metaphor is that you do not have a lane on the highway just for emergency vehicles, but when it comes down the highway, he pulled go out of the way -- people get out of the way.
>> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. >> thank you. let me follow up on my partners questions. i know back in the day you were looking at the use of federal spectrum. it is a concept that is finally come to the point where we can do something about it. i believe this is a way to encourage federal agencies to relinquish spectrum. it is not easy to do. we work with the dod. we made a lot of progress. i am also looking at what the commissioner has always said about using a certain approach , the carrot and stick approach, regarding the federal spectrum holders and having them relinquish spectrum.
in your view, and i also want you to comment on this, are that incentives going to be adequate to encourage federal agencies to relinquish noncritical spectrum? chairman wheeler. >> i do not know the answer to that. i have not market tested it. is this enough incentive is a market test question. i will with all due respect punt. what is important is the concept that has been developed. it seems to me that once that concept is codified, making sure that incentives are adequate is frankly the easier lift on the whole exercise. >> thank you. commissioner? >> thank you for the question. the legislation that you have
introduced is terrific. the demand is going up and the supply of the spectrum is going down. it is time to be creative. this legislative -- legislation is creative. federal agencies by some measure have veto control over percentage of our airwaves. -- over about 60% of our airwaves. they use their spectrum for their mission. keep our planes in the sky and tell us what weather patterns are coming. the do not have structural incentive to be efficient with it. your bill is the start of a conversation of how to apply those incentives. once we get it right, we will have a catalyst for new mobile broadband use. it will be a terrific thing for the economy. >> thank you. chairman wheeler, you emphasize how important it is for you to lead the fcc in fact-based decision-making.
for example, this committee is looking to the fcc engineering expertise to determine the conditions under which wi-fi protects the missions of fellow commercial systems. how will you and your staff this bond to that -- planning to respond to that challenge? >> so, as the commissioner said, i associate myself with this comment that he is a strong supporter of unlicensed. the key is to make sure their are no harmful interferences. i believe that if you take a look at the five gigahertz and you look at block one, we should be moving to rulemaking on that. it is something that the commissioner has often suggested.
when you look at band two that is dod, we have to address the questions that i was addressing with mr. dingell. make sure there is no harmful interference. there's nothing on the record that gets to that. but we need to build that record. >> thank you. i have to ask a broadband options question. -- broadband adoption question. the fcc has implemented a lifeline measure. can you explain what the fcc plans to do here? what is the goal of these pilot projects? >> there are 14 projects taking place around the country that we are funding with some savings we have had in other parts of the program. we will look at what is the impact of a lifeline like subsidy on broadband adoption? and we will look at what are the
kinds of training issues to help people understand what broadband can do for them and the kinds of things that they can do once they get on the internet. those seem to -- it is not just the two -- that you can access it. but also that you can use it and you ought to be will understand why you ought to use it. >> will you use this to develop a responsible, permanent broadband adoption program? >> that is the goal. these are the trials to inform future actions. wireless broadband and broadband adoption are kind of the center point of what the agency does. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. five minutes. >> thank you. i want to make a comment on the
audience. this one is a lot bigger than the one upstairs with the joint hearing. they seem to be more interested as well. [laughter] that is a credit to the subcommittee and the fcc commissioners. we have the nrc. >> that would be news, wouldn't it? [laughter] >> anyway, i have one question the middle-class tax relief in the jobs creation act requires repackaging and optioning 65 megahertz spectrum in the low- power tv in which there are thousands and are not guaranteed continued assistance.
the chairman of this subcommittee has a bill that we hope to introduce soon. why does it not guarantee them? -- while it does not guarantee them any additional megahertz i , hope it creates a pathway so they can continue to exist. as the new chairman of the commission, do you have any thoughts among might be done to give our low powered tv industry a chance to continue to exist? >> thank you. yes. it probably falls into three buckets. there has been a lot of talk about following the statutes. translators are secondary services. that is what the statute says. second, we have opened a public notice on the delivery of the content.
how do we make sure that the content -- and this and that -- and this ends up being more of a digital technology question than anything else. how do use digital technology to get comment -- content out? make sure the consumer gets the content. and then the dirt point is -- third point is there might be a safeguard in the reality that rural areas do not have that great of a demand for spectrum wireless services to begin with. they may be operators -- there may be operators where there is less pressure to get spectrum. we will find out. >> you are the new kid on the block. you have not had a chance
publicly to comment on this issue. any thoughts on low-power tv and what might be done to help them to continue to exist? >> the chairman and you are right to introduce legislation to work on the spectrum at. it was a decision made by the members to not protect low-power translators. i would defer to your legislation to resolve that. i know we had a chance to talk. representatives have argued to participate. i am not sure if that is accurate. we have heard that argument as well. >> that is my only question. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. five minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate your time to be here today.
this is a very informative hearing. chairman wheeler, in my state of utah, we have many translators -- over 750 active translators that relay signals to many rural communities that rely on tv to obtain the newscast and entertainment. with the increased reliance on mobile data, there is no doubtard to make spectrum available.ould on those they tend to be more dependent on broadcast television. what steps is the fcc taking two protective viewers from possible negative impacts? >> congressman, the first issue is how threatened should they feel? the fact that they are living in rural areas where there is less may end up being a defect no shield for them.
the secondary service does not have protection. how do protect con rely on it? that is why we have had a public notice and are seeking comments on the question of how to get what the translator or tv station does in terms of content out and how this new technology fits into that such as digital use of the airwaves or whatever the case may be? this is clearly an issue where we need to be focusing on what is the effect on the consumer rather than what is the effect on the transmission medium. you have told us how to look at that. >> i appreciate that response. there has been a lot of back- and-forth on how the incentive option should be structured. -- the incentive option --
auctioo should be structured. we should maximize participation. what do you see is the best way for us to maximize participation and revenue for the federal >> before i took this job, i was ar business dls.ou i think thatwhnsaction of someone who has a license needs to make a business decision. how do you what is our role? we need to make sure we are getting relevant information on a timely basis into the hands of those parties to make that decision. that is why we have scheduled the option plans. auction lands. we will lay out what kind of information needs to be.
i think it is incumbent on us to have an outreach program in which we make sure that small and large broadcasters understand how the program will work and what the economics could be. maybe even think in terms of what economic models might look like. at the end of the day, we are saying we want the market lace place to make a decision on -- we want the marketplace to make a decision as to what is the best use of spectrum? they cannot make that decision until it is informed. it is incumbent upon us to make sure that information is given in a timely manner and to help them with that process. >> i have a question for you about a program you mentioned briefly in your opening testimony. you also mentioned that the current program that has jiro
-- the current rate program has some inefficiencies built in. -- bureaucratic inefficiencies built in. what can you do with your existing authority or what do you need for congress to do to change it to increase those efficiencies? >> thank you for the question. i think the program is important and invigorating it is important for education and the economy. we can do more with this program. we do subsidize a lot of old- fashioned services right now. we should phase those out over time and focus on capacity and bandwidth. we need to reduce bureaucracy. it gets in the way of small and often brutal squirrels from -- often rural schools from participating in this program. i would like to -- and often -- from percent -- participating in this program. >> i appreciate that. i yield back.
>> the chair recognizes for five minutes the gentleman from nebraska. >> thank you. let me begin by saying thank you to the former acting chair. during your tenure as acting chair, you have finished the low power fm and you guys did a wonderful job. you really did. thank you to all of you for that. for the former acting chair -- >> the commissioner. formerly known as. [laughter] >> you can have a sign for your name now. you were extremely communicative. i love the way you reach out to us. frankly, you're so extraordinary i think every chairman including the new one, should model themselves after that. it is rare that we see that level of communication.
thank you to all of you. this is a great board. you are serious about the real issues. i like how you filter out the politics that surrounds all of this. keep it up. i know that the regression analysis has been discussed to some point. that has been a longtime concern for me. some of the concerns that we have that could displace capital investment -- this is all about getting capital into rule america. -- rural america. because of its high cost. it needs to be reviewed. i have been told that your comments are that you understand this problem. i invite you and all of the
commissioners out to rural it really is becoming a problem. there is one provider that we have used about the model for responsible rural telecom. because there are businesses there that now have highest need or are using it. there is a wind farm that they are having trouble the one that needs a broadband hookup and they are saying with our cap we do not have the money. we are not allowed to use our money in that way. it is just not that one house that is 30 miles about getting
in and out. it is hurting rural economic development. i want to ask the real question and to chairman wheeler and if they wish to step in. i want to ask about a role that concerns the video market the current market is seeing an expansion in the scope of current law was not intended to address it. the only buying group out there. are there plans by the commission to look into this to maybe change it? do you think they should be excluded from this process? rule to address voice calls on
>> i've just become aware of issues that have been raised about this. they would ask that we would get back to you. the answer is that we will be dealing with it >> any commissioners have concerns? >> you actually had an expression. we teed up a lot of this third about listed all of the issues americans iteration. we need to make sure they take the appropriate action to other entities are able. >> you they will be moving on a
we are going to take you live to the chairman of general motors. he will be speaking about the plans in the united states. introductions are being made i press club president. >> he came in 2010 as the ceo to turn around the biggest of the big three from. it is longer than any other automaker. the global downturn said beginning 2008 also turn into a crisis for the u.s. automotive industry. it was further weakened by increases in gasoline prices, discouraging sport utility
vehicles, the bread-and-butter of the u.s. industry profits. gm feil chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 with 82 billion dollars in assets and 100 $70 billion in liabilities. they shed several brands. they were in general motors $30 billion in return for a 60% stake in the company of following an ipo. the treasury last week said it recouped $39 billion of the 50 billion in spent on the gm bailout. gm has turned a bailout and renovated dealerships. under his leadership, gm placed first in the initial quality study, putting an american automaker on top for the first time in 27 years. gm cars and trucks have won accolades from consumer reports
and motor trend. before joining gm, he was a managing director and head of global buyout for the carlisle rew. washington and served as ceo or president of several telecommunications and technology companies including nextel communications in general instruments. please join me in giving a warm national press club rough -- welcome to dan akerson. [applause] >> thank you, angela. many thanks to the national press club for inviting me to speak. this is an auspicious time to speak to an audience of reporters. as you may have heard, gm has been in the news a lot lately. last week the transformation of general motors pastssed two
major milestones. first, the united states treasury sold it last share of general motors stock closing a remarkable five-year chapter in american business history. that got immediate attention. the next day we announced that mary borrow will become the next ceo. that did not go unnoticed either. on that day, for the first time in decades, all eyes at general motors turned toward the future the end of government motors era has cleared the way for general motors to truly soar forward. we are building a gm that america can once again be proud debt. it has not been easy. the path forward for mary and the team will not be easy
either. the enormity of the task became crystal clear when i became ceo. the new gm was fragile. when they emerge from bankruptcy that lasted only 39 days, that was good because we did not do it reparable damage to our brands or dealer networks. a 39 day bankruptcy only gave us time to repair the debt side of our balance sheet. truly transforming a business would it take much more. we had to remedy decades of poor decisions, in decisions and no decisions started to pile up in the 70s and 80s like so much running firewood. i categorized of the problems we
face into three broad buckets. they were out of control costs wasteful complexity, and a diminished quality funded by ruinous debts. you can pick almost any point in time and find something to shake your head over. for example, in 1978 general motors paid almost as much in benefit as it did in net income. the next year, the company agreed to the largest pension increase in uaw history. eventually, general motor pensions the largest in the world, became chronically and dangerously underfunded. despite tens of billions of dollars in cash, stock infusions
to make it whole. these actions actually weakened the company because they treated the symptoms and not the disease. robbing precious dollars for product development. more recently, u.s. hourly costs increase an average of 4% annually from 2003-2007 even though the company had total operating losses of 17 and a half billion dollars in 2005- 2007. while manage and was figuratively burning furniture to keep warm, we were automatically increasing our fixed costs. complexity was everywhere. a few short years ago general motors had more than 30 different the all architectures supporting sales of about 9 million vehicles worldwide.
then the ridiculous. the company had almost 70 different advertising agencies around the world to us to support the chevrolet brand. it is staggering but it also shows how we lost focus and our advantage. in another move, it gm leaders outsourced nearly all of the company's information technology. we effectively dismissed data capture and proprietary analytics as a core competency just as the internet was about to transform all modern dismissed models - -business models. we ended up with 23 partially owned data centers which is not only cost ly but risky. we are in sourcing our i.t. and
growing it as a core competency. the 23 data centers will be reduced to two which will increase our performance reliability and cost. at 1.i would barely close her own books in a timely manner because they were on different letters. for those who are financially trained that finance 101. the list goes on. we almost will happen next. thus we know what happens next. the company that top to be fortune 500 when it was first listed in 1955 and stay there for 35 years fell into disgrace. something even more suffering -- sobering, gm have lost sight of the customers and what the truly valued. quality, compelling design, and reliability. in my heart of hearts, i new gm was fixable if a new leadership
team laid ball and systematically addressed the company shortcomings. i made a promise to myself and the board to deliver on three important initiatives in my tenure. the first was the restoration of gm's good name. the in, the transformation of the company basic operations. my third goal was to put quality and the customer back at the center of every decision we made. every aspect of our business every angle we took was to make every system and every operation best in class. we do not set out to become competitive or average. we wanted to be best in last. for example we have committed
$3 billion of our precious balance sheet to build our dealerships and create the best customer sales and service experiences in the industry. we have reduced the time it takes to resolve complex customer issues from 28 days to a week. it is our objective to get it down to one day. we are launching the industry's largest deployment of four g lte -- 4g lte to bring the analog cars of today into the digital world. we are investing more than half $1 billion to build an information technology capability that would make silicon valley proud. we have invested more than $4 billion to grow gm financial around the world.
we had been the innovation leader for years. decades. we were slow to commercialize our intellectual property. we are now innovating for the benefit of our customers. i will give you a good example. reducing the weight of our cars will improve our mileage/fuel economy to meet the new demanding standards. that means we are going to have to use more aluminum. some engineers in this group. no one has ever figure out how to weld aluminum. we have. we patented it. we are unable to use more aluminum, andsteel in things such as car doors.
you see them in error plays -- airplanes and cars. we no longer had to do that. it takes complexity out of our assembly lines. it uses investment. it gives us competitive advantage. we revamp this. we were not even able to figure out profit line profitability because we had different letters around the globe. on the product front, we will reduce the number of vehicle architectures by half within the decade. we have also defeed $40 billion
of our pension liabilities. we have doubled our revolving line of credit and have dramatically simplified our balance sheet. we have worked hard to earn the trust of our employees, both hourly and salaried and get everyone aligned on straightforward trough it and quality targets. today when a salaried employee gets a bonus, hourly workers get a profit share. we are aligned. we are not at odds with each other any longer. i could keep on going but i think you get the picture. we have been trying to fix this airplane while in air. the bottom-line result has been encouraging. we had a 21 point 3 billion-
dollar ipo, the largest and i feel history at the time. we have generated over 600 $4 billion in global automotive revenue sent our reorganization in 2009. we have had 15 profitable quarters in a row and earned more than $30 billion in earnings before interest and tax. we have announced more than 9 billion in capital investments in u.s. facilities. we have returned to the s&p 100. all of this is good for our employees, our investors, our industry and our country. none of that will matter for much of we go back to his roots as usual. that is why it is critical to put the customer back in the
center of every decision we make. i keep returning to this being because it is what the world's strongest brands do, embrace the customer as foundational. this is the biggest cultural change that we have been able to infuse into the new dm. i think our products tell the story best. it was only a few years ago that president obama rhetorically asked "why can they not make a corolla?" please. no one is asking that anymore. today we are taking on the best of vehicles in the world and winning with products like the cadillac cts and chevrolet and impala. we are entering new segments like midsized truck so that our domestic competitors have abandoned to the japanese. our trophy case is filling with quality awards.
we became the first and only american automaker to top jd powers initial quality study ever. consumer report ranks the chevrolet silverado and impala as the best sedan and truck you can buy. just last week, auto week magazine named the corvette and silverado as the best of the best. it is ok. it is the first time that one manufacturer ever won both categories in the same year. this is a 2013 north american car of the year. it has a 2014 that is up for
best north american car for 2014. this will be named next month. i anxiously await the outcome. it is an embarrassment of riches that i am not there is about. as good as all of this sounds the truth is we are still in the early chapters of our comeback story. we have a lot to room. especially to those who left us from other brands. the only way to bring them back to keep making cars and crossovers. we will keep doing this to corrosive economic up-and-down spirit today we are taking another step forward by announcing new investments totaling $1.3 billion in five u.s. lance.
this will take this to more than $10 billion. there is the $10 billion again. we are investing in. we will keep paying dividends to the american public support of this company in the darkest hour. this will be spread from detroit to our birthplace city of flint michigan and two hard-working communities like romulus michigan, toledo ohio and bedford indiana. about 7500 people work in the cities. today's announcement will create or retain another 1100 jobs in america. that brings our total of new and retain jobs to 26,000.
it is by two different administrations dared the entire u.s. industry is back. rather than allowing the industry to collapse and turned the great recession into another great depression, our nation stood by us. we come to work every day determined to restore gm as the american standardbearer in the global automotive industry. someone asked me recently if the government motors tag still hurts us. to be honest, we do not hear as much anymore. it reminds me of a comment that should be to to ronald reagan. he said he knew his economic plan was working when they stop offering it reaganomics.
gm is working again. we have put together the leadership team with experience optimism, and a strong competitive streak. we're making vehicles that are the pride of the industry. when i became ceo, i wanted to help build a sound foundation for the next generation of leaders to build on. i cannot wait to see how far they can take it. i think it is going to be greeted -- great. thank you. i will be glad to take any questions you might have. [laughter] [applause] >> we know chrysler received money as well.
you mentioned $10 million that gm gained and the taxpayers did not gain back. do you think gm should repay the taxpayers that money directly? >> well, first let me contrast to something there. the center for automotive research estimates that between not having to pay for unemployment, social costs in the various communities in the midwest and particularly in lost tax revenue that it was about a $38 billion gain. we had a 26 billion-dollar pension deficit that is ever been thrown into the lpbgc account. that being said, one of the vantage i have, i wasn't there. when you go through a bankruptcy
court at a private equity, everybody takes a haircut at the table. we have paid back all the dateebt. they could have cast the big group see differently. they were taking a ride just like you do when you buy stocks. we have new shareholders. we went to the market. we sold tens of dollars of equity. when you come in, you're buying that stop a step on how it is wrapped in stacked. to go back and pay that back. i can tell you there would be shareholder suits that would be difficult to defend. the die was cast in 2009. it played out for the national guard for many years there were decisions, no decisions, bad decisions. all of it has been rectified in large measure.
the automotive industry in this country is 3.5% of the total gdp. the foreign competition would have been a serious mistake. i would not accept the premise of this is a bad deal. >> gm had applied for low interest loans from the government and then rescinded the application before decision was made. how would gm be different if you had gone through and received the loans? >> at was one of my first actions. i figured we had taken enough from the government that we would stand on our own two legs or not. we turned those loans it down and decided to go. some of our competition are more indebted to the federal government in terms of almost $7 billion. maybe that is a question you ought to ask someone.
ford. [laughter] >> the invitation stands. why does gm deserve the taxpayer money instead of hostess i got a lot of attention for its bankruptcy? >> i think the automotive industry, in my opinion countries do several things well. the manufacturer and add value and grow their food. they are traders. in an industry such as ours, i see it every day, the question is was it a good investment? was the automotive industry more central to the prosperity of this country? then hostess twinkies or cupcakes?
these are high-paying jobs in communities that the government had a compelling interest. i think this was a positive for the u.s. economy. >> will you have an easier time repairing now that government or sections are no longer in effect? >> i do not know. we have recruited a very good team. i will tell you it was not about money. it was about being part of the transformation of a one great company and restoring it back to great. not everybody works just for money. i did not come to general motors for a paycheck. i came because it was an interesting business paradigm.
probably the most challenging industry in my generation. more importantly, what this country represented to this economy and to this nation. i do not thing pay was the fact tour -- factor. that said, our competition has seen what we're doing. at higher a number of people from our european competitors. they thought we would come out of the gate and feel. they thought they were going to be the 2009 version of the health care program. it didn't. it was tough. there were many long nights and hard work. it has been one of the best business experiences for our team. what i think they will remember for the rest of their life. we're going to have to pay better.
we are viewed as attractive again. we have a lot of young, capable executives. >> how has the bailout effected the culture of the gm? faxt>> the bailout allowed us to put the customer at the core of everything we do. to focus on what is important. the prior administrations and executive teams it was a point of, d. it was a health care -- oddity. it was a health care plan. how to fund the retirement plans and take money from peter to pay paul. we were robbing from product
development which kept us competitive to the point where the jews cannot lay any more golden eggs. now that we have the structure of the company properly stated, we have a allen sheet. we are focused on profitability of the core business. at the same time focusing on brands and marketing. we are a hard-core business again. we're still one of the biggest private pension land in the world. >> one of the things that was agreed to in the restructuring was a two-tiered wages system. tell us how that is working now with new hires working alongside veteran employees who are getting paid more than the new workers. >> lemmie casted this way.
-- let me cast it this way. i thought we needed to open up a new chapter in industrial rent relations -- in industrial regulations. this is nothing like a crisis to bring focus to a particular issue. what i asked the washington post said i was either a meal fight or a visionary. they tended to gravitate toward neil fight -- neophite. mike ought was that no increases for four years would never the accepted by the uaw. i went to dinner with the uaw leadership every month for almost a year and worked it and worked it and try to sell my vision and said basically we will link management of bonuses.
we will link management bonuses to uaw profit share. this is of arguing for a one or two percent cost-of-living. let really sure the profits. it will be tied to performance and quality. quality is a new center part of our initiatives. they have prospered under that. when you got $6,500. i also try to total transparency. there will be good years and there will be bad years. there will be years that there are not bonuses and there'll be years there are not profit share. you cannot have people going like this. whether it is tier one or tier two, we had to get our labor costs on an hourly rate and nonunion states such that at the end of this four-year contract
that our hourly cost were going to be equal to or less than our foreign competition. the uaw is a business partner in you can argue over a 2% or 3 are sent rays are you -- raise for you can get a job. it was tough. we had to rejigger our own retirement plan for management too. we still have people on undefined management plans. that is very unpopular. we had to make a lot of unpopular decisions that people in the company know we are making decisions for the long- term longevity of the company. you have buy-in, whether it is union or salary.
i think the employee base is unified in the purpose here. >> you mentioned the news out of treasury got a little bit of attention. do you plan any advertising campaigns around that? >> i do not think people eating tacos in chile are going to pay attention to the american taxpayer. i might be wrong on that. we do not have anything planned right now. we may do something. it would not be within the super bowl atmosphere. >> salaried retirees have been waging a very public campaign for years now in which they contend they were cheated out of a large share of their pensions. what is your take on that? do delphi salary retirees have a legitimate gripe? where should
the blame lie? >> i'm going to address that question. that was done well before i arrived. this was a fully funded pension plan. the company ran their own pension plan. we ran our own pension plan. the company spun off. that is where the courts decision was along that line. i know it is a very volatile subject. i was not there when the decision was made. i was not there when the delphi was spun out. i know it was spun out with a fully funded pension plan. >> what does the future hold for former delphi facilities that are now part of gm, such as the former facility and lock poor
new york. it will gm have to make further cuts in the operation? >> i have no idea on a specific basis. me make one comment here. -- let me make one comment. >> some successors have downplayed the significance of mary barra being the first female ceo of a major automobile maker. what are your thoughts? >> i have not read any putdowns personally. nor do i think it should be. it is a story. i think mary barra was picked purely on her talent hard work and success. nothing else. we do this because of stem
science, technology, engineering and math. graduates coming out of colleges. about 25% of our plants are owned by women. a young woman that runs our manufacturing engineering. folks in the plans. a complex woman runs our supply chain global purchasing. our quality initiatives and customer experience, woman. they serve on the executive committee. we are proud of that. i'm not surprised that mary rose to the top. she has been with the company for i believe 30 plus years. she graduated from gmi, think of that like you would west point or annapolis. they had their own service academy.
she went to stanford. she came back and has performed exemplary. it is noteworthy. it should be. i think she was well deserving of the appointment. >> your announcement today is about the 1.3 billion dollars invested around the u.s. a questioner asks about plans to increase investment globally. >> between product development and capital expenditures, you would spend $15 billion a year. when we spend a billion three sound like a big number. we are doing this around the globe. you see business opportunities and the likelihood of success. we are going to continue to invest at this rate. one of the things we came into
this we are so burdened with the debt and we are underfunded. now what we do is we have a fortress balance sheet. we went into bankruptcy at think we have 40 plus billion dollars in debt. now we have a liquid position about $37 billion in cash. shareholders are saying that is too much. we will balance that about what we need. we used to have the start and stop. coming out of the recession, we would be short on new quality product. we want to be able to invest economics up and downs. we will have a strong portfolio.
we are in a capital intensive cyclical industry that is determined by long-range planning. we have to think out 10, 20, 30 years to make sure we are competitive. >> gm has invested half a billion in the arlington texas facility. why such a big bid in texas and on suvs in particular? >> why do you rob banks? that is where the money is. why do we invest in this particular plant question mark we make suvs there and they are highly profitable. -- plant? we make suvs there in their highly profitable. we want to invest in all segments of the market. arlington is one of i've truck plants that we have.
this is the last one to get the capital upgrade to produce the new k2xx platform. lack how long w -- >> how long will it take chinese cars to become like the japanese market and start capturing a share? is this taking larger than you -- longer than you might expect it to? >> that is a difficult question. the chinese market is the largest market. i do not think they feel the need, think it was a different time and different place in a different set of circumstances back in the 60s and early 70s
when the japanese came in this market. there is no question in my mind that there'll be one or two global chinese champions that will come out of the domestic markets. it is only a matter of time. our partner there is shanghai auto. it is robust. it is strong. we have the lead market share jointly in china. we hope to hold that, wrote it. -- grow it. it has been a very robust partnership and one that we value and cherish. >> speaking of japan transpacific ardor should negotiations are ongoing. there are hangups including safety and other regulatory issues. what kind of provisions do you expect to see if an agreement isn't reached in those bilateral talk? is a currency position necessary to close the deal? >> i was on the japanese board
for three years. i could count the number of american cars i saw in three years on two hands. there's not an american manufacturer in japan. throughout asia the japanese yen has weakened to the point where they have a 20% advantage not only versus the united states and the dollar but other major currencies to include the korean war anan won and euro. the united states has been called a fiscal manipulator. this is an important part of the tpp in one pennies to be watched very carefully. -- and one that needs to be watched very carefully. >> david strickland announced last week that he is sticking --
stepping down. what is your assessment of his tenure? >> i think our cars have got nothing but safer. i think that transcends political parties. he has done a good job. i think he is a funny -- he has done a great job. >> any ideas where he will land next? >> i do not think you will come to general motors to work. >> i think he has a career. i do not know him personally. i think public service is unappreciated in this country. there are public servant that do great work that are highly unappreciated. i feel like he is whether that have done a good job. >> what about the future of electric vehicles in the market?
sales have not been what gm wants. we're d.c. see electric vehicles going both for gm in the u.s. market more broadly? >> we will sell more votes in this market then audi markets. we are right knee mill. not that this is a sore subject. this car is a step forward. a thing about other cars that have had fires and things of that nature. [laughter] we never had a fire with a volkswagen. never. we were able to start when in a test cents.
we tivo did. we do not conduct it or drain the gas out of it. we do not drain the electric battery. never had an accident. we have something like hundred 50 million car miles. we tivo and them. we have been total. they are safe. you do not have rage anxiety. you have an onboard generator. he can take that car and drive it from washington to l.a. and back and not worry about it. you say, 80% of americans and drive 40 miles or less per day. that car will run 40 miles without a charge. pretty dam good. i have one. i have put less than $75 of gas in the in 2.5 years. it provides utility i want but he keeps the air clean. if i want to drive it for long distances i can without worrying about range anxiety.
this is the future. say we could develop a car that could go 200 miles on a charge. i have an onboard gas generator. yet to get the nomenclature light. it is electrical. under there are not a lot of electrical engineers in the crowd, but engines produce alternating current. you have to convert it to d.c. to charge that battery. emissions, co2. this is a great car. we're going to come out with a new one this month called the plr which is a cadillac not unlike the bowl --volts wagon. i do think it has a future. battery technologies have gotten better. it is going to get better. they're going to be breakthroughs.
you have to be there early and often. the you cannot the and interlocal -- interloper that shows up 10 years and say where were you when the party started? >> as you alluded to, after the post crash test fire on the gm was subject to a congressional hearing, etc.. you did not name names but i will. tesla has not been called before congress. do you think there's more attention paying attention? >> company should be judged and how they handle crises. there is a good safety percent of the car. this is our tylenol moment. we offered to buy back any car. we offered to get a replacement while we tested it. we crashed eight other cars, the
same circumstance. they did. we did. we cannot replicate it. to get nine experiments and have eight over here in nine over here, you did that. we stuck with it. we took the battery out of the car. we are still with a one inch sphere. we put it on a spit. we broke the seal. we broke the seal. we continued to spill: onto the battery. rotated.
the fact that we handled it so differently than other car companies. we offered it back. we offered replacements. we put additional buttressing to shed the load if we were to take a hit if we were to get t-bones. i think what hundred 50 million miles -- 150 million miles an assist on the road today. not one fatality. not one fire. we are proud of the save tfety wrecker. i have no comment about what tesla should do. i do think it is interesting in a politically charged environment. this is not president obama's car. this was conceived back in 2007. it was not my car. i am proud of it. i do inc. this car is a huge
step forward. a lot of other companies are interested in this. we will develop this portfolio further. >> what do you think of you hamas -- elon musk's strategy. it is different from the gm strategy you just told us. >> there were many things i wanted to change when it came to general motors. one of them was bethe safety issue climate. we were going to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. you cannot just fold your hands and arms and say that is not the way i see it. engage in the dialogue. come to come -- try to come up with a sensible solution.
that is the general motors approach to the problem. others will have other approaches to it. >> what about help driving cars? jim is developing along with your competitors. are they over height -- over- hyped or would they be part of our future car market here in the u.s. and the world? >> you can get active cruise control, which puts you off. he come up on a car and think you should be 100 feedback and your settings will slow you down or stop the car. in my grudge things i little too close to the side and it stops me which is a little bit unnerving. that being said, i think you will see self driving cars in the right circumstances. i cannot imagine quite frankly
and maybe i am just old and don't understand, in a crowded urban environment where a child chasing a ball could dart in front of you. i can give a hundred examples that i would want to have some positive controlled by a human. if you're on the road going 70 miles an hour, 65, whatever the speed limit is, you ought to have that. [laughter] we have that. we can talk to you and the car will pretty much take care of itself. it will speed you up and slow you down. in a confined urban environment i can think of the weather light spreading out of an intersection, a dog, a puppy. i can see all sorts, maybe the
plaintiff's bar with love that. the software. it is a ways off. i think it will have to be another generation before it comes. >> let's squeeze in a wetjen since we are in washington. what do you think the automobile industry should be at the midterm review. is it an opportunity to weaken the 54.5 standard? i was involved in the new cafe standards. i thought senior executives were not actively engaged enough. little things came up. for example we produced trucks. hyundai didn't. i driven a rural area in minnesota were dual axle trucks -- he grew up in a rural area in
minnesota where he dual axle trucks, you needed heavy duty trucks where you hall in heavy equipment and livestock. -- haul in heavy equipment and livestock. we were serving a market that some of our competitors did not. we wanted to bifurcate trucks and cars. level the playing field. some do not want to play in the market across the board. the second thing was if you produced 2499 and these pacific the and of you do not have to pay the guzzler tax if you have that mileage. what is mercedes and bmw need in the home markets? we have the clinical scientist
versus physical sciences determining what this can do. this is some high-end thermodynamics and engineering. we asked for a mid-term review to cs the physical science kept up with the political science the senate just mandating this and waking up in 2022 and saying we are part of the problem. we wanted to be part of the solution. it is not an opportunity to renegotiate. i think this is a responsible industry to take and one that i was glad to see that our regulators agreed with. >> we're almost out of time. before asking one last western i have a couple of housekeeping matters. i would like to remind you about our upcoming speakers. on
december 19 we have a grammy winner and bluegrass legend and on january 9 general frank j grasped, chief of the national guard. i would like to present our guests with the traditional national press club coffee mug. glycogen i drink coffee but i'll try. -- i do not drink coffee but i will try. >> a month from now when you are in the private sector what is the first car you will buy? >> i think i am in the private sector. [laughter] i will only buy a gm car. then i will check with my wife errs. >> a politic answer. thank you.
thank you for coming today. how about a round of applause? [laughter] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> i would also like to thank our national press club staff including our journalism institute and the staff are helping to organize today's event. you buy more information about the national press club including a transcript on our website at w ww. press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. >> if you missed any of this
conversation with the ceo of gm, you can watch it anytime online. we will have it on c-span.org. we are going to look at congress. the house finished legislative work for the year. i continue to meet in brief pro forma sessions. they will be out until january 7. the senate returns at 3:00 eastern time. they begin with judicial nominations. and patterson is nominated as secretary of state for near eastern affairs. jeh johnson is